-
“People are saying ‘which side are you on?’” But he says it’s “better to reflect in a mature, cross-party way” that can both “protect the trans community” and “protect women who are concerned about safe spaces”. On gender recognition, Starmer concludes: “I’m convinced there’s a way forward here if everyone is prepared to stop chucking bricks at each other”
These are the words he said on radio 4. This is not an acceptable viewpoint to me.
croft-
I recognise I'm firmly in the centrist dad camp on most things but can you explain for my benefit what is wrong with calling for people to work together rather than being pushed into opposing camps on things? (which my conspiracy spidysenses think is probably part of a divide and rule tactic).
Is it repeating a trope about safe spaces?
Cheers
-
I'm not trying to be angsty, fighty or still less trolly, but do you disagree with either of his central points:
- “protect the trans community”
- “protect women who are concerned about safe spaces”
and if so, which one? At the risk of seeming even more Centrist Dad, I can see that there's a conflict between the two. Both represent noble and valid viewpoints in my opinion, and on that basis any solution has to reflect a balance between the two positions.
FWIW, I agree with him that sensible adult debate has become more difficult these days due to tribalism, where people identify with a particular point of view and rather than trying to listen and absorb another side's point of view, and even argue the merits of that point of view, resort to hurling abuse at the 'opposite' side, despite the fact they probably have more in common than the real enemy.
Gender recognition is not a simple issue. It demeans the debate to polarise it between 'good' and 'bad'. It would be nice if life was that simple, but it's not.
- “protect the trans community”
hugo7
Brommers
How have you reached that conclusion? Have you actually watched what he said?